LAWS(MPH)-1995-2-100

RAJENDRA KUMAR GOYAL Vs. OMPRAKASH MITTAL

Decided On February 28, 1995
RAJENDRA KUMAR GOYAL Appellant
V/S
Omprakash Mittal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.1995 passed by Smt. Renu Sharma, Second A.D.J. Morena. Briefly narrated the facts are that a suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 69,057.40 with interest against the petitioner and respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner was the partner of respondent No.2 and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 55,000/ -. An agreement was executed in that regard on 12.2.88. Written statement was submitted contesting the claim. The pleas raised in the written statement are not very much relevant for the disposal of the present petition except paragraph 16 to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which shall be mentioned hereinafter. Evidence of the plaintiff had started and during the evidence of the plaintiff an application under 0.6 R. 17 C.P.C. was moved by the defendant whereby he claimed that the plaintiff owed a sum of Rs. 82,390/ - to the defendant which was recoverable from the plaintiff. He, therefore, wanted to add paragraphs 18 and 19 in his written statement. That application has been rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) THE parties have been heard on merits of the revision petition at this initial stage. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the defendant/revisionist had already mentioned about the facts relating to the amendment in paragraph 16 of the written statement. The defendant now wants to take the plea of set off as he can raise this plea under the law. The learned trial Court has thus acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. He placed reliance on AIR 1963 Punjab 479 (Amar Nath v. Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd.) and AIR 1952 Patna 73 (Sheobachan Pandey v. Madho Saran Choubey).

(3.) THE cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The petitioner may bring a fresh suit with respect to his claim provided it is within time if he is so advised.